[Editor’s note: Due to a bad case of flu that kept
the editor inactive for over a week, the services scheduled for January
had to be rescheduled. I am sorry for the inconvenience but it could not
be helped. See you in Brandon Feb. 23-27, 2000 RWC

A few month’s ago, while
traveling to Independence, Kentucky, for a meeting with Bro. Ron Crisp and the
First Baptist Church, I left early enough to spend a few hours in the library at
Union University (a Southern Baptist College) in Jackson, Tennessee. As I
searched through their books, I was amazed at the number of books that I found
which dealt in part or in entirety with the matter of “soul liberty” or “liberty
of conscience.” This has been a cornerstone of Baptist doctrine and practice
from our earliest history.

As I sat and read parts of several of these
books, I was reminded of an early Seminary class in Church History. Dr. Paul
Goodwin, my Church History instructor at the Missionary Baptist Seminary in
Little Rock, Arkansas, said something to this effect, “I will fight what Roman
Catholics believe, but, at the some time, I will fight for their right to
believe it.” He was referring to the subject of soul liberty and
the fact that Baptist’s have long been champions of this concept. He was
dealing with the influence Baptists had on the fight for freedom of conscience
that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.

I am happy that Bro. Richard and Greg
Eckstein, The Historic Baptist, and Berea Sovereign Grace Baptist
Church of Bloomfield, New Mexico, are publishing THE GREAT CONFLICT:A
Discourse Concerning Baptists and Religious Liberty by George Lorimer
(See ordering information at the end of this article). Bancroft who is quoted in
The Great Conflict wrote, "Freedom of conscience, unlimited
freedom of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the Baptists."

Sadly, many of our Baptist brethren and
churches no longer champion this cause for “soul liberty” and “liberty of
conscience.” We often do not even allow this liberty among our own brethren. I
was reminded of this again recently when I read the following statement.
"The people that feel they are appointed by God to be His personal sheriffs
usually do not like to have their authority challenged in any way." Eld.
John Reisinger, Editorial, Sound of Grace, (December 1999).

It is often easier to attack the person with
whom we disagree than it is to disprove his position. One of the fallacies of
which some are guilty when arguing a point is known as argumentum ad
hominem. This is committed by directing the argument against the
character of the person who is the opponent instead of proving one’s point
with valid evidence or disproving the opponent’s point with valid evidence. If
you disagree with someone and cannot effectually answer their argument, just
call them an ignoramus, an idiot, a heretic, an apostate, or something else that
reflects on them and takes attention away from YOUR inability to
answer what they say.

I am not suggesting that we should compromise.
I am not suggesting that we should not expose what we deem to be error. But,
especially where brethren are concerned, we need to do our disagreeing in a
gracious, brotherly manner. We may be wrong and the other brother may be right,
or, we could both be wrong.

B. H. Carroll, a strong, local-church-only
Baptist, refused to break fellowship with brethren (such as J. M. Pendleton) who
held to a universal, invisible church. As long as they gave prominence to the
local church, he continued to fellowship with them though he considered them to
be advocating a potentially harmful doctrine.

Bro. John Kohler has written/edited a new
introduction for The Great Conflict. It, with an introduction by
Bro. Greg Eckstein, is presented here for your edification. I pray that this
introduction and this re-published book will awaken anew the love of “soul
liberty” in all of us. As Lorimer said, “LIBERTY is
one of those words which challenge love and devotion. It needs no
recommendation; for it belongs to the same category as order, as progress, as
truth, as law.”

INTRODUCTION BY GREG ECKSTEIN

"The Great Conflict" is a treatise
which deals with Baptists and religious liberty. Religious, (or soul liberty),
is the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of each individual's
particular conscience, and has always been a Baptist distinctive. This
contention, has at times, conflicted with the wishes of those in power, causing
Peter to say: "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).

Anyone with a knowledge of history knows of
the past persecution of Christians by both civil governments and organized
religion for failing to worship according their established criterion. Baptists
have historically believed that men have no business meddling with the religious
beliefs of others and have zealously championed the cause of soul liberty. Aside
from refusing to bow to the demands of others, this means we also advocate the
right of everyone else to worship as they see fit. The application is universal,
whether people look to the Lord Jesus Christ as their Head, or whether it be
Muhammad, Buddha, or David Koresh. Needless to say, this usually incurs the
wrath of those who set themselves up as the final authority on all things
divine,

What is appalling today, is that some Baptists
are elevating themselves to positions once reserved for ungodly governments
and religious institutions, and are persecuting their own brethren! Rather than
embrace one another in Christian love, they refer to those who differ with them
on certain matters as "enemies", "heretics", and
"apostates". James warns: "My brethren, these things ought not so
to be." (ref. James 3:9,10).

As you read Brother Kohler's foreword, his
research on this topic is readily apparent. By quoting a number of old Baptist
writers, we see the concept of religious freedom continuously reinforced.
Deeming it worthy to stand on its own in booklet form, we hope it stimulates the
interest of some to acquire this much-needed reprint.

Greg Eckstein

Editor, The Historic
Baptist

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: A Sacred Baptist
Principle

By Eld. John Kohler

Freedom of conscience may be defined as
"the God-given right of every individual human being to believe whatever he
chooses without restraint or repression from any of his fellow human
beings." History reveals that Baptists have continually stood at the
forefront in the ongoing struggle for individual soul liberty and have been
among the leading proponents of the sacred principle of freedom of conscience.

British historian Herbert S. Skeats has
written as follows on this particular point: "It is the singular and
distinguished honor of the Baptists to have repudiated, from their earliest
history, all coercive power over the consciences and actions of men with
reference to religion . . . They were the proto-evangelists of the voluntary
principle," (A History of the Free Churches of England, p.
24).

This unwavering commitment on the part of
Baptists to the promotion and protection of freedom of conscience is evidenced
in the following quotations from various Baptist writers:

"Do not lay a burden on my conscience,
for faith is a gift freely from God, and is not a common property. The mystery
of God lies hidden, like the treasure in the field, which no one can find, but
he to whom the Spirit shows it. So I beg you, ye servants of God, let my faith
stand free." (Hans Muller, 16th century A. D., in Emil, Die Zunscher
Wiedertaufer, p. 76)

"The burning of heretics cannot be
justified by the Scriptures. Christ Himself teaches that the tares should be
allowed to grow with the wheat. He did not come to burn, or to murder, but to
give life, and that more abundantly. We should, therefore, pray and hope for
improvement in men as long as they live. If they cannot be convinced by appeals
to reason, or the Word of God, they should be let alone. One cannot be made to
see his errors either by fire or sword. If it is a crime to burn those who
scornfully reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how much more it is a crime to
burn the true expounders and exemplars of the Word of God. Such an apparent zeal
for God, the welfare of the soul, and the honor of the church is a
deception. Indeed, to every one it must be evident that the burning of heretics
is device of Satan." (Balthasar Hubmaier, A. D. 1524, Von Ketzern und
Verbrennen).

"Our Lord the king is but an earthly
king, and he hath no authority as a king but in earthly causes, and if the
king's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the
king, our lord and king can require no more: for man's religion to God is
between God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it, neither may the
king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or
whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least
measure." (Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of
Iniquity, p. 69).

"How much more ought Christians, when as
the Turks do tolerate them? Shall we be less merciful than the Turks? or shall
we learn the Turks to persecute Christians? It is not only unmerciful, but
unnatural and abominable; yea, monstrous for one Christian to vex and destroy
another for difference and questions of religion." (Leonard Busher, Religion's
Peace:A Plea for Liberty of Conscience).

"Compulsion of conscience makes
differences to rise to a great height, which if men were left to their own
light, what is not of God would far more easily fall." (Christopher
Blackwood, The Storming, p. 21).

"Christian liberty lies in worshipping
God according to the dictates of conscience, without the fear of men, which
indulged to, brings a snare, and leads to idolatry, superstition, and
will-worship: though Christians are obliged to regard the laws of men,
respecting civil matters, yet not what regard religion and conscience, and are
contrary thereunto; by such they are not bound, but should serve God rather than
men; as the cases of the three companions of Daniel himself, and of the
apostles, and of the martyrs and confessors in all ages, shew; who chose rather
to suffer imprisonment, confiscation of goods, and death itself, than part with
this branch of Christian liberty, to serve God, according to his word, and that
light which they had in it. Nor does it become the rulers and governors to
infringe this liberty of theirs." (John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and
Practical Divinity, p. 527).

"No such believer, or Servant of Christ
Jesus hath any liberty, much less Authority, from his Lord, to smite his fellow
servant, nor yet with outward force, or arm of flesh, to constrain, or restrain
his Conscience no nor yet his outward man for Conscience sake, or worship of his
God. . . every man being such as shall appear before the judgement seat of
Christ, and must give an account of himself to God, and therefore ought to be
fully persuaded in his own mind, for what he undertakes." (John Clark, Ill
Newes from New-England, p. 10).

"It may now be asked, What is the liberty
desired? The answer is: As the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and
religion is a great concern between God and the soul, with which no human
authority can intermeddle, consistently with the principles of Christianity, and
according to the dictates of Protestantism, we claim and expect the liberty of
worshipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a
ministry we cannot attend, whilst we demean ourselves as faithful
subjects." (Memorial from the Warren Association in Isaac Backus', A History
of New England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians
Called Baptists, 2:201 n).

"Every man must give an account of
himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a
way that he can best reconcile to his conscience . . . Government had no more to
do with the religious opinions of men, than it has with the principles of
mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles
that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three
Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing."
(John Leland, A.D. 1791, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, pp.
181, 184).

"We accordingly have ever believed that
the state has no authority to legislate in matters pertaining to the conscience.
When man violates the rights of man, the state may interfere, and prevent or
punish the wrong. But, in matters which concern our relations to God, the state
has no jurisdiction. It has no right to take cognizance of our duties to God.
Hence, it is guilty of wrong, if it prohibit or annoy any form of religion, if
it favor one more than the other, if it restrict the exercise of any form or
devotion, either public or private, or in any manner whatever interfere in the
matter of religious belief or practice ... Here, then, is the peculiar glory of
the Baptists. While they have suffered persecution at the hands of almost all
the dominant sects that emerged from the Reformation, their garments have never
been defiled by any violation of the rights of conscience." (Francis
Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches,
pp. 134-35, 137).

"This follows from individual
responsibility. If one be responsible for himself, there must be no restraint or
constraint for himself, there must be no restraint or constraint of his
conscience. Neither parent, nor government, nor church may usurp the prerogative
of God as Lord of the conscience. God Himself does not coerce the will. His
people are volunteers, not conscripts." (B. H. Carroll, Baptists and
Their Doctrines, p. 18).

"Baptists protest that the State has
nothing to do with the control of religion; but that it must give unrestricted
religious freedom to all, as their sacred and natural right in the exercise of a
free conscience. All true soul-liberty arises in that purity of conscience,
which, unbound itself, leaves all other consciences free. Our idea is, that as
the untrammeled conscience is the inalienable right of man, he can be made
accountable only to God for its exercise. Hence, when any human power proscribes
or persecutes man, by putting him under pains or penalties for following his
convictions of duty in obeying God, such interference is an usurpation. When a
man follows these convictions, he is entitled to the honest respect and love of
all; and he is bound to extend the same right to others which he claims for
himself." (Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists, pp.
153-54).

"Baptists have one consistent record
concerning Liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have
never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the
unwavering champions of liberty, both civil and religious. Their contention now
is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and
fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not,
according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not
infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable to God alone
for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere
toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between
toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the
right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right.
Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle.
Toleration is a gift from man, while liberty is a gift from God. It is the
consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and
everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it
is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel
men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for
the support of a religious organization to which they do not belong and to whose
creed they do not believe. God wants free worshippers and no other kind."
(George W. Truett, Religious Liberty, a sermon preached on
the steps of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. in May of 1920).

"If each human soul alone is responsible
to God for the discharge of its duty, then no human authority has a right to
come between that soul and its God, and therefore, all interference with the
faith and practice of man in matters of religion, whether that interference be
from human government, parental authority, or religious teachers, under the name
of priests, pastors, or what-not, is a violation of the sacred rights of
conscience, and not to be tolerated . . . If the Bible is our supreme and
exclusive role of duty, then it follows, as a logical necessity, that every man
has a right to read and interpret the Bible for himself." (Thomas Henderson
Pritchard in Charles Jenkens', Baptist Doctrines, pp. 312,
314).

"Each individual, according to the
Baptists, must give account of himself to God. Being responsible to God alone,
he can have no priestly Mediators or Church between his soul and God. Holding to
this religious axiom, that all souls have an equal right of direct access to
God, the Baptists rise up in indignation at any effort on the part of
domineering ecclesiastics or political demagogues to stifle the divinely-given
right of every man to freely express the thoughts of his soul. Tyranny of any
kind, be it ecclesiastical or political, is an insult to the Baptist conscience.
Baptists may not agree with all who speak and write their opinions, but they
will die that all men may have that right. Therefore, Baptists believe in
absolute Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and in Freedom of Conscience
and Religious Liberty for all. The Jesuit hammer, in trying to stifle men's
consciences, has been broken, and will continue to be broken, on the anvil of
the Baptist Conscience ... The Roman Catholic system is built upon the false
principle of ecclesiastical totalitarianism, grafted on to Christianity. With
Baptists, Christ alone is Head of the Church and Lord of the consciences of
Christians." (Wendall Holmes Rone, The Baptist Faith and Roman
Catholicism, p. 171).

“Although Baptists believe in the divine
right of every individual Christian to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and
to act freely according to the full persuasion of his own mind, how scantily is
this freedom, as a general thing, accorded! Baptist churches have a standard of
orthodoxy, partly written, partly traditional, the aim and effect whereof is in
many cases to hamper the freedom of individual consciences. The amount of
bigotry and intolerance to be found in Baptist churches is, when compared with
the fundamental principles of Baptists, appalling!" (Albert H. Newman in
Charles Jenkens', Baptist Doctrines, p. 280).

The historic devotion to the sacred principle
of freedom of conscience is not only made obvious by the above quotations from
Baptist writers, but it is also clearly manifested in the following statements
from various Baptist confessions of faith:

"The magistrate is not by virtue of his
office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel to
this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to handle only civil
transgressions (Rom. xiii), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder,
adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church
and conscience (James iv. 12)." (1612 General Baptist Confession of
Faith).

"Thus we desire to give unto Christ that
which is His, and unto all lawful Authority that which is their due, and to owe
nothing to any but love, to live quietly and peaceably, as it becometh saints,
endeavoring in all things to keep a good conscience, and to do unto every man
(of what judgement soever) as we would they should do to us, that as our
practice is, so it may prove us to a conscionable, quiet, and harmless people,
(no ways dangerous or troublesome to human society) and to labor and work with
our hands, that we may not be chargeable to any, but to give to him that needeth
both friends and enemies, accounting it more excellent to give than to receive.
Also we confess that we know but in part, and that we are ignorant of many
things which we desire and seek to know: and if any do show us that friendly
part to show us from the Word of God that which we see not, we shall have cause
to be thankful to God and them. But if any man shall impose upon us anything
that we see not to be commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, we should in His
strength, rather embrace all reproaches and tortures of men, to be stript of all
outward comforts, and if it were possible, to die a thousand deaths, rather than
do anything against the least tittle of the truth of God, or against the light
of our own consciences. And if any shall call what we have said heresy, then do
we with the Apostle acknowledge, that after the way they call heresy, worship we
the God of our Fathers, disclaiming all heresy (rightly so called) because they
are against Christ, and to be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in
obedience to Christ, as knowing our labor shall not be in vain in the
Lord." (1644 London Confession of Faith).

"The Lord Jesus Christ, who is King of
kings and Lord of all by purchase and is judge of quick and dead, is only Lord
of conscience; having a peculiar right so to be. He having died for that end, to
take away the guilt and to destroy the filth of sin that keeps the consciences
of all men in thraldom and bondage till they are set free by His special grace.
And therefore He would not have the consciences of men in bondage to, or imposed
upon, by any usurpation, tyranny, or command whatsoever, contrary to His
revealed will in His Word, which is the only rule He hath left for the
consciences of all men to be ruled and regulated, and guided by, through the
assistance of His Spirit. And therefore the obedience to any command or decree
that is not revealed in or consonant to His Word in the Holy Oracles of
Scripture is a betraying of the true liberty of conscience. And the requiring of
an implicit faith and an absolute blind obedience, destroys liberty of
conscience, and reason also, it being repugnant to both and that no pretended
good end whatsoever by any man, can make that action, obedience, or practice,
lawful and good, that is not grounded in our upon the authority of Holy
Scripture or right reason agreeable thereunto." (1679
General Baptist Orthodox Creed).

"The liberty which Christ hath purchased
for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin,
the condemning wrath of God, and rigor and curse of the law, and in their being
delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their
yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and
willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law for the
substance of them; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is
further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which
the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne
of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake
of.

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and
hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any
thing contrary to His Word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such
doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience; and the requiring of an
implicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of
conscience and reason also.

"They who upon pretence of Christian
liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish and sinful lust, as they do thereby
pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so
they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is that, being delivered
out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in
holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives." (1689
London / 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith).

"We believe that civil government is of
divine appointment, for the interests and good order of human society; and that
magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored and obeyed; except
only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the only Lord
of the conscience, and the Prince of the kings of the earth," (1833
New Hampshire Confession of Faith).

"God alone is Lord of the conscience; and
He hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in
anything contrary to His Word, or not contained in it. Civil magistrates being
ordained of God, subject in all lawful things commanded by them ought to be
yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake." (1858 Abstract of Principles).

"We believe that civil government is of
divine appointment for the interests and good order of human society; that
magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and obeyed; except in
those things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the only Lord
of the conscience, and the coming King of kings." (GARBC
Articles of Faith).

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and
He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are
contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be
separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the
pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical
group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil
government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal
obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God, The
church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of
Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state
has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state
has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free
church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of
free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form
and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the
civil power." (1963 Baptist Faith and Message).

Although Baptists throughout their history
have been firmly committed to the vital principles of individual soul liberty
and freedom of conscience, there is among too many contemporary Baptist churches
and pastors a legalistic, "fighting Fundamentalist" spirit that poses
a serious internal threat to the religious liberty and prosperity of Baptist
people everywhere. This is such a prevalent threat that it would almost appear
the greatest dangers faced by Baptists today are not to be found outside the
camp, but within various circles of Baptist fellowship.

The spirit or attitude warned above is not a
"legalistic" spirit in the sense that it denies salvation entirely by
God's grace or promotes works-salvation, but in the sense that it treats matters
of Christian liberty as matters of Christian obedience, and turns subjective
interpretations of the Holy Scriptures . . . interpretations that often go far
beyond Scripture and are based upon the poor hermeneutical practice of eisegesis
... into objective rules or laws for all Baptists and, in some cases, for all
Christians. It is a "legalistic" spirit in the sense that it mistakes
human interpretations of the Bible for the supreme and final authority of the
Bible itself and fails to see that these are not one and the same. At times, it
even goes so far as to declare that one cannot be a sound or true Baptist
without embracing these human interpretations of God's Word.

This unbiblical and "un-Christian"
spirit or attitude is the spirit of the "fighting Fundamentalist" in
the sense that it uses fear, threats, intimidation, and other bully tactics to
try to force others to accept its subjective interpretations of the Holy
Scriptures as "ex cathedra" pronouncements, and labels those
who cannot in good conscience buy into these teachings as "heretics,"
"infidels," "apostates," and "sowers of discord among
brethren." In this process, the fruit of the Spirit is all but forgotten
and the works of the flesh are made manifest in a sickening, repulsive way.

ORDERING INFORMATION

The price on The Great Conflict
is $11.00 per copy. On orders of 5 or more, the cost is only $8.00 each and will
include a free copy of Random Remarks! (All orders postpaid). Random
Remarks is $5:00 per copy. You may order the books from The
Historic Baptist, PO Box 741, Bloomfield, NM 87413.

(Editor's Note: In 1973 I wrote the following
letter to the parents of a little boy who had died after his parents refused him
insulin though he was a diabetic. Supposedly, he had been healed by a traveling
preacher who skipped the country when the boy died. I never received an answer
of any kind from these folk).

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker,

I read today (Sunday, Sept. 2, 1973) of you
and of your son, Wesley, who recently died. The Peoria Journal Starcarried
an Associated Press story by Linda Deutsch.

Please accept my sympathy for your situation,
for I perceive by your statements in the paper that you have been deceived by
Satan, causing you to let your son die when a simple shot of insulin would have
kept him alive. Only Satan would have caused you to squirt that life preserving
insulin into a wastebasket, ignoring the plain words of Jesus who declared, "They
that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." Your
son was sick and willing to take that which the physician had prescribed for
him. Under Satanic deception, you have taken his life into your hands and robbed
him of it.

As you sit there in a cell, you will have time
to think. May you pray for wisdom and spiritual perception. Satan has blinded
your eyes to several important truths. May I point them out?

"TRY THE SPIRITS"

Satan had deluded you into believing that the
impulses and feelings that you received were of God. You need to be aware that
there is a grave necessity to "believe not every spirit, but try the
spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into
the world" (I John 4:1). Where is that traveling preacher who
"appeared at church, anointed Wesley Parker's head with oil, and prayed in
the trance-like mystery of tongues?" (AP article, Peoria Journal Star,
Sept. 2, 1973). According to the article, the "authorities are still
seeking" this man. Is he of God or is he of Satan?

Where is the one who, while this traveling
preacher prayed, cried, "Praise the Lord? Wesley is healed!"? Who
deceived that individual? Surely it must have been that master of deceit, Satan,
whose "false apostles and deceitful workers" have been
guilty of "transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And
no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" (II
Corinthians 11:13, 14). Your son was not healed! That person who cried
out that he was is an accomplice in his death. God does not lie. That person was
lying under the influence of the father of liars—the Devil (John 8:44).

That you were and are deceived is revealed by
your statement: "God gave us the faith that Wesley was healed" (AP
article). Is God a deceiver? Did he lead you to believe that Wesley was healed
when he knew all the time that Wesley would be dead in three days? You charge
God with a deception. He is not guilty. Satan deceived you again.

The fact that Satan had you in his control is
again manifest when, as you wondered what would happen if Wesley's daily urine
test was positive, you say: "The Holy Spirit welled up in me. And I said,
'Even if it's positive, that's the work of the devil, and I won't believe
it.'" Well, Mr. Parker, the test was positive, and it was no lie. The Devil
used you as his pawn to deceive an innocent 11-year-old boy when you declared:
"Wesley, this is a lie of Satan." Did you not know, Mr. Parker, that
Satan "was a murderer from the beginning (John
8:44)?

You should have tried the spirit that
"welled up" in you. It was not of God. God would not have deceived you
or caused you to deceive your son.

THE PURPOSE OF MIRACLES AND TONGUES

The quotes from you folks in the AP article
indicate that you have also been deceived as to the purpose of miracles and
tongues. The Bible is very specific as to the purpose of each.

MIRACLES

The purpose of miracles was that unbelievers "may
know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins" (Mark
2:1-12). They were manifest that men might "know"
that Christ was "a teacher come from God" (John 3:1-16). They
were given for the purpose of "confirming the word" of
the apostles. (Mark 16:17-20). When the apostles preached, God was
"also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers
miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will" (Heb.
2:4). These signs were called "the signs of an apostle (II
Cor. 12:12)."And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders
and signs were done by the apostles" (Acts 2:43). God had men,
moved by the Holy Spirit to write down a record of these signs so that those
reading the Scriptures "might believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they might have life
through His name" (John 20:30, 31).

TONGUES

The purpose of tongues was clearly
demonstrated on the day of Pentecost. The Lord's people were commanded to tarry
in Jerusalem until they were empowered to be witnesses unto all the world. When
that power came and a multitude gathered to see what was happening, "they
were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these
which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we
were born? . . . we do hear them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of
God" (Acts 2:7-11).

The gift of tongues was set in the church for
the purpose of witnessing to those who speak other languages, not forthe
purpose of praying over the sick who speak the same language as the one praying.

Did anyone interpret the traveling preacher's
prayer when he prayed in tongues? ". . . if
there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church" (I Cor.
14:28).

According to the AP article, Mrs. Parker, you
"prayed in tongues for the first time" on June 6, 1965. This was on a
Sunday, I believe. Was it in the church? "Let
your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to
speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law . . .
for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14:34, 35).

Paul declared: "In
the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that by my voice
I might teach others also, than ten thousand in an unknown tongue" (I Cor.
14:19).

THE DURATION OF THE GIFTS OF TONGUES AND
HEALING

Mr. and Mrs. Parker, the article further
revealed that you have been deceived as to the duration of these gifts of the
Holy Spirit that were set in the church.

"Now concerning spiritual gifts,
brethren, I would not have you ignorant," said Paul (I Cor. 12:1).
In the last verse of the same chapter, Paul said: "But
covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent
way" (v-31.)

In chapter 13, Paul tells what this “more
excellent way" is. He tells us that when "that which is
perfect" was come, all the spiritual gifts set in the church would
cease except three—"faith, hope, love" (v-8-13)."That
which is perfect" is the Bible, "the perfect law of
liberty" (James 1:25). Peter calls the scriptures a "more
sure word of prophecy" (II Peter 1:18-21). He declared it is even
surer than a voice from heaven.

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity
[love], these three" (I Cor. 13:13). Not two,
not four, but threespiritual gifts remain in the church today.
The gift of healing which this disappearing traveling preacher sought to
exercise would make five. God inspired Paul to say, "faith,
hope, charity, these THREE."

WHENCE THEN THE MIRACLES AND TONGUES OF TODAY?

I am sure you are now asking: "Mr. Camp,
what about the tongues? What about the miracles that are worked? If not of God,
of whom?"

THE DEVIL IS A MIRACLE WORKER

Many come who work
in the pattern of Satan demonstrating "all power and signs and lying
wonders" (II Thes. 2:9). "They are spirits of devils working
miracles" (Rev. 16:14). They may even make "fire come
down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men" deceiving them "by
the means of these miracles" which they have the power to perform
(Rev. 13:13-16).

Paul declares that "such are false
apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of
Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the
ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” (II
Cor. 11:13-15). Jesus said: "Many will
say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in
thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And
then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity" (Matt. 7:22, 23).

NOT A DENIAL OF GOD'S POWER

Mr. and Mrs. Parker, please do not construe
this letter to be a refutation of the power of God. I believe God is
all-powerful. Satan is very powerful, and the evidence is that he has deceived
you causing you to believe that Wesley was healed, that his urine test was a
Satanic lie, that he would rise in four days after death, that he would rise
after four days in the grave. He will rise again. That resurrection will either
be at the return of Christ in the air (I Cor. 15:23) or at the end of Christ's
reign on earth (Rev. 20:1-15).

Mr. & Mrs. Parker, I pray that you might
study the Scriptures presented in this letter and give serious consideration to
these things set forth. The Bible has the answer (II Tim. 3:16, 17).

KENTUCKY: I am
writing this letter for two reasons. First, I want to tell you how much I have
enjoyed the lost few issues of the Grace Proclamator. Your series on Baptist
Giants of the Past has been excellent. I believe your newsletter is the best
Sovereign Grace, local church paper I know of. Most Landmark Baptists today hold
extreme positions concerning the church that are not defendable scripturally,
historically, or logically. Your paper is one of the few exceptions to this I
know of. Please, keep the trumpet sounding!

Second, I would like to give you the addresses
of a couple of pastor-friends of mine who could greatly benefit from your paper.
Sadly, I see so many "Calvinistic" Baptists going into the Reformed
Baptist camp and leading toward their Protestant concepts of the church. That's'
why I think your paper is so valuable in our day and age.

OHIO:

Please
add my name to your mailing list.

INDIANA: HURRAH FOR
YOU ON YOUR CHRISTMAS WEBSITE. I have not observed it from the time I was 15.
Dad struggled with it and asked me if I would mind not doing it. I said no. Then
before going off to Bible College I studied it and continued to do so for 4
years. The proof is there for seekers.

I was doing research on another paper on it
and saw your article. Thank you. I had one written years ago and some one stole
it and must have destroyed it. It was thousands of hours of research with a
bibliography that was extensive. I have decided to write another and I will have
some of the samearguments as you but approach it in yet another way that
I have found to be very effective. Thanks again.

SPAIN:

I'm writting to answer your article.
First of all I must say I disagree with it although you got some good and
interesting points that deserves further discussion.

The command by Jesus: It's true, Jesus never
told us to celebrate his birthday, he actually never told us to celebrate easter
or pentecost, but we still do it. Jesus told us to baptise people and to
celebrate the Eucharist ("This is my body...this is my blood... do this in
memory of me"). So the commandment Jesus gave us means we can't do anything
or teach anything he taught us? I don't think so; Jesus came at a particular
time, and now times have changed. Jesus never preached against abortion, I guess
it didn't exist in those days, and yet every christian church defends life of
the unborned, because we are sure Jesus would have done that if he was
fissically on earth. Actually he still is, if you remember the scrpture , when
Saul was an enemy of the church Jesus told him why are you against ME? (I
apologize, english is not my native language so I don't know the exact
translation). So I guess Jesus left his Church as a sacrament of himself, the
church he founded is the Catholic Church (Universal Church) with a pope (St.
Peter).

The date: Since no one really knew Jesus
birthday they just picked one. The pick was during the northern's hemisphere
winter because it wanted to represent that God came to the world at the world's
darkness. And since in late december you got the longest nights in the northern
hemisphere, the 25th of december seemed a good idea. You also say it used to be
a pagan holiday, then the decission of the Church at those days was brilliant,
because people started to forgive their pagan past.

About the Christmas tree: That's an invention
of the anglo saxon countries. In latin countries such as Spain, Italy and Latin
America we didn't used a Christmas tree untill we started copying you, instead
we used a nativity recration, with images of Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus, the wise
men and the shepard's. It has nothing to do with the celebration o Christ's
birth.

As a Catholic I'm honoured to know the real
meaning of the word Christmas. In spanish the translation is Navidad and in
portuguesse is Nöel (both meaning nativity), so the word Christmas is a problem
of your language and not of the celebration.

And finally as a catholic I'm surprised about
your ignorance about the celebration of the Holy Mass. Mass is a memorial of
Jesus' sacrifice. Because you know nothing about Catholic theology I'll explain
you that the word memorial means "to make present" wich is an idea
different form remembering. In Mass we make present the sacrifice of Christ.
Christ sacrificed himself once, but we make it present every day (exept in good
friday). In the celebration of Mass we fulfill Jesus command "do this in
memory of me" so it means, make the Eucharist present. And as you know the
Eucharist is the celebration of Easter. Jesus celebrated Easter before Easter,
just like the israelites celebrated Passover before Passover.

I'd like to end this letter reminding you that
by insulting Jesus' creation you are insulting Jesus himself, and that the
Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus himself. The papal
institution was Jesus' command, when he told Peter he was going to be the rock
of the church.

If you check the catholic liturgy for Cristmas
or Christ's Mass you'll see that we celebrate both, Jesus birthday and Jesus
promise of his return to Earth.

WWW:

I
found what you wrote to be very interesting. It points out many things people do
not know about mixing our culture with our religious beliefs. You have written a
very precise and scholarly work here. My compliments to you.

From the reading I was not sure of what faith
you were. A Baptist perhaps?